Indian journal of dermatology · 2019
A Randomized, Double-blind Study of Amorolfine 5% Nail Lacquer with Oral Fluconazole Compared with Oral Fluconazole Alone in the Treatment of Fingernail Onychomycosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chandra Somodyuti, Sancheti Karan, Podder Indrashis, Das Anupam, Sarkar Tushar Kanti, Chowdhury Moitreyee, Sil Amrita, Bhattacharya Susmita, Das Nilay Kanti
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It is a challenge to treat onychomycosis due to frequent treatment failures and relapses. Systemic and topical therapies need to be combined to improve cure rates. Antifungal susceptibility might play a role in the treatment resistance of onychomycosis.
AIMS: To compare the safety and effectiveness of amorolfine 5% nail lacquer + oral fluconazole versus only oral fluconazole in the treatment of fingernail onychomycosis.
METHODOLOGY: In this double-blind trial (CTRI/2015/02/005369), patients were randomized (1:1) into amorolfine 5% nail lacquer + fluconazole and dummy lacquer + fluconazole. Treatment was given for 3 months with monthly follow-ups. Antifungal sensitivity was carried out for Candida. Effectiveness was assessed by reduction in the number and percentage area of nails involved and mycological cure. At the end of 3-month treatment period, the association between drug sensitivity and treatment response was explored for the Candida infections.
RESULTS: Among 30 study participants, the combination group showed significantly lower number of nail involvement (P = 0.004) and percentage nail involvement (P = 0.005) than only fluconazole group. Pretreatment fungal culture showed a comparable number of dermatophytes, Candida, Aspergillus in both the groups. Sensitivity testing was done for the isolated Candida species. Antifungal sensitivity for Candida (n = 11) was tested, and 8 (72.7%) of the organisms were sensitive to fluconazole (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] 1.25 ± 1.19 μg/ml), 100% were sensitive to itraconazole (MIC 0.0726 ± 0.021 μg/ml), and 3 (27.3%) were susceptible-dose dependent (S-DD) to fluconazole (MIC 16 μg/ml). Fluconazole only group patients with Candida who showed resistance to fluconazole did not respond to therapy; however, patients in the combination group showed moderate improvement (reduction in area involvement = 55.56 ± 35.36%).
CONCLUSION: The combination of amorolfine/fluconazole achieved a higher cure rate not only for sensitive fungus but also for those which were S-DD to fluconazole.
AIMS: To compare the safety and effectiveness of amorolfine 5% nail lacquer + oral fluconazole versus only oral fluconazole in the treatment of fingernail onychomycosis.
METHODOLOGY: In this double-blind trial (CTRI/2015/02/005369), patients were randomized (1:1) into amorolfine 5% nail lacquer + fluconazole and dummy lacquer + fluconazole. Treatment was given for 3 months with monthly follow-ups. Antifungal sensitivity was carried out for Candida. Effectiveness was assessed by reduction in the number and percentage area of nails involved and mycological cure. At the end of 3-month treatment period, the association between drug sensitivity and treatment response was explored for the Candida infections.
RESULTS: Among 30 study participants, the combination group showed significantly lower number of nail involvement (P = 0.004) and percentage nail involvement (P = 0.005) than only fluconazole group. Pretreatment fungal culture showed a comparable number of dermatophytes, Candida, Aspergillus in both the groups. Sensitivity testing was done for the isolated Candida species. Antifungal sensitivity for Candida (n = 11) was tested, and 8 (72.7%) of the organisms were sensitive to fluconazole (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] 1.25 ± 1.19 μg/ml), 100% were sensitive to itraconazole (MIC 0.0726 ± 0.021 μg/ml), and 3 (27.3%) were susceptible-dose dependent (S-DD) to fluconazole (MIC 16 μg/ml). Fluconazole only group patients with Candida who showed resistance to fluconazole did not respond to therapy; however, patients in the combination group showed moderate improvement (reduction in area involvement = 55.56 ± 35.36%).
CONCLUSION: The combination of amorolfine/fluconazole achieved a higher cure rate not only for sensitive fungus but also for those which were S-DD to fluconazole.